.jpg)
RETURN
OF PANDITS TO KASHMIR: REAL ISSUES
The question of the return of Kashmiri Pandits cannot be meaningfully addressed without first confronting, in its full depth and complexity, the reasons for their departure. Their exit in the early 1990s was not a normal migration, nor a gradual demographic shift driven by economic aspiration or social mobility. It was a forced and fearful exodus that unfolded within a specific historical moment marked by the rapid escalation of terrorism, the spread of radical ideologies, and the near-total collapse of state authority in the Kashmir Valley. During this period, Kashmiri Pandits, a small yet historically significant minority deeply embedded in the Valley’s intellectual, cultural, and social life, found themselves increasingly vulnerable in an environment that was becoming openly hostile. The atmosphere was shaped by targeted killings of prominent members of the community, widespread threats issued through posters, letters, and mosque loudspeakers, and a pervasive climate of intimidation that penetrated daily life with alarming intensity.
Slogans echoed through
neighbourhoods at night, many explicitly threatening the Pandit community,
creating an environment in which fear was not abstract but immediate, personal,
and inescapable. The brutal killings were not random; they were selective and symbolic
in gruesomeness, often targeting individuals seen as representatives of the
community’s identity: intellectuals, professionals, and serving officials,
thereby sending a chilling message that no one was beyond reach. These acts
were accompanied by instances of abduction, sexual assaults, and the public
display of hit lists outside mosques. At the same time, the administrative
machinery of the state appeared paralysed. Governance structures failed to
provide reassurance or protection, leaving vulnerable populations without a
sense of security. In such conditions, remaining in one’s home became
inseparable from the risk to one’s life. For many families, the decision to
leave was not triggered by a single incident but was the culmination of
sustained fear, uncertainty, and the erosion of any belief that safety could be
restored in the near future. They left in haste, often under the cover of darkness,
carrying only what they could manage. Homes, properties, temples, schools, and
generations of accumulated memory were abandoned. Their departure lacked
closure; it was marked instead by a fragile expectation: that the displacement
would be temporary, that normalcy would return, and that they would soon
reclaim their place in the Valley.
Dispossession,
Erasure, and the Normalisation of Absence
What followed transformed
that temporary flight into a prolonged and painful exile. In the years after
their departure, many properties left behind by Kashmiri Pandits were occupied,
encroached upon, or transferred under deeply contested conditions. Homes were
taken over, sometimes through distress sales conducted under duress, and at
other times through outright illegal occupation. Orchards, agricultural lands,
and commercial establishments changed hands, often without transparency or
fairness. Temples and religious sites were left unattended; in numerous cases,
they fell into disrepair, suffered vandalism, or were encroached upon.
Educational institutions and community spaces that once sustained cultural
continuity met a similar fate. These developments represented far more than a
change in ownership; they marked the systematic fading of a community’s visible
and material presence in the Valley. Over time, absence itself became
normalised. New generations grew up in an environment where the coexistence
that had once defined Kashmiri society was no longer a lived reality, but a
distant memory, if remembered at all. This normalisation was accompanied by a
silence as consequential as the violence that preceded it. People within the
broader society, whether out of fear or reluctance to confront uncomfortable
truths, did not openly acknowledge what had occurred. The result was a profound
rupture in trust; not only between communities, but within the moral fabric of
society itself. In such a context, the idea of return cannot be reduced to
administrative planning or political declarations; it is shaped by the weight
of unresolved history.
Acknowledgement,
Accountability, and Social Reconciliation
For return to be genuine, it
must rest upon a process of reconciliation that extends beyond policy
frameworks. This process begins with acknowledgement: a clear and unambiguous
recognition of the events that led to the exodus, including targeted killings,
threats, the pervasive climate of fear, and the failure of institutions and
society to protect a vulnerable minority. Such acknowledgement cannot be
partial or qualified; it must be candid and consistent. It must also confront the
uncomfortable reality that some of the violence and intimidation originated
from within the Valley itself, involving individuals, often local youth who had
been radicalised and drawn into extremist movements. Recognising this does not
implicate an entire society, nor does it negate the broader political
complexities of the conflict. Rather, it affirms a fundamental moral principle:
that the targeting of unarmed civilians and the intimidation of minorities are
indefensible under any circumstances. Alongside acknowledgement must come
accountability. This requires not only condemning those responsible for
violence but ensuring that legal processes address past crimes and present
injustices. Allegations of illegal occupation, fraudulent property transfers,
and encroachments upon religious and cultural sites must be examined through
transparent and credible mechanisms. Where wrongdoing is established, remedies
must follow, whether through restitution, compensation, or restoration of
rights. Without such measures, calls for return risk being perceived as
symbolic gestures disconnected from reality.
Equally important is the
role of society in fostering conditions conducive to return. Reconciliation
cannot be imposed from above; it must be cultivated within communities. This
involves re-engaging with a shared cultural and historical narrative in which
Kashmiri Pandits are recognised not as outsiders or relics, but as integral to
the Valley’s identity. Educational institutions, cultural forums, and public
discourse must play an active role in restoring this understanding,
particularly for younger generations who have grown up without direct
interaction between communities. Building trust requires sustained engagement,
openness, and a willingness to move beyond entrenched narratives. It also
demands confronting the legacy of silence by creating spaces where difficult
conversations can occur without fear, allowing empathy to replace distance.
The
Deeper Challenge: Memory, Resistance, and the Moral Imperative of Return
Opposition to the return of
Kashmiri Pandits is not always overt. More often, it exists in layers: of
silence, denial, convenience, and unresolved guilt. It resides not only in past
violence but in memories of what was allowed to happen and in the realities
that followed. It is reflected in the occupation of abandoned homes, orchards,
temple lands, schools, and institutions; properties that were not merely
physical assets but the living heritage of a people. Homes were not simply
occupied; they were erased as sites of memory. Temples were not only left
behind; they were desecrated or allowed to fall into neglect. What once
embodied identity and faith was reduced to silence or appropriated in absence.
It also persists in the enduring
trauma of that period: in the targeted killings, the threats on walls, the
slogans in the night, and the fear that entered homes uninvited and never fully
departed. Families did not leave by choice; they fled to survive, carrying
little beyond their lives. A painful truth remains: much of this violence did
not feel distant or faceless. In many cases, it emerged from within the Valley
itself: from individuals shaped by radicalisation and extremist ideologies,
turning against communities with whom they once shared everyday life. This
reality deepens the wound, transforming violence into a rupture of trust,
shared history, and human connection.
Equally significant was the
silence that accompanied these events; neighbours who looked away, communities
that froze, and a society that, whether out of fear or helplessness, could not
or did not act when it mattered most. In the years that followed, this silence
was seldom broken with honesty or accountability. It continues in narratives
shaped by prolonged exposure to radical ideas, where reconciliation is viewed
with suspicion and return is perceived not as healing, but as disruption.
There was also a failure of
leadership and institutions: political voices that spoke selectively, civil
society that chose caution over courage, and systems that offered promises
instead of justice. The combined weight of militancy, opportunism,
radicalisation, silence, and institutional inaction has created a reality in
which return is not simply about going back; it is about confronting what was
lost, what was taken, and what remains unresolved.
The return of Kashmiri
Pandits, therefore, cannot be reduced to infrastructure alone. It is not merely
about housing, employment, or security, essential though these are. It is about
restoring relationships between people and their homeland, and between communities
that once coexisted. This restoration demands transformation at the moral, social,
and legal levels. It asks whether a society is willing to confront its past
honestly, address its consequences justly, and reimagine its future
inclusively. Without such a foundation, the language of return remains
incomplete, and reintegration uncertain. With it, however, return can move from
aspiration to possibility, offering not only the restoration of a displaced
community but also the renewal of a shared and pluralistic vision of Kashmir.
Accordingly, the return of Kashmiri Pandits is not merely a political or
logistical issue. It is a moral test. It asks whether truth can be
acknowledged, justice restored, and trust, once broken in the most painful
way, rebuilt with honesty, dignity, and courage. Without truth, return becomes
performance. With truth, it becomes a possibility.
(
Avtar Mota )
Based on a work at http:\\autarmota.blogspot.com\.
